Naddi

Naddi v. D.R. Hill

Good Law
106 F.3d 275·97 Daily Journal DAR 589·1997 WL 11613·1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 580·97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 364
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJanuary 15, 1997Nos. 96-55755, 96-55791California981 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Concurrence by Judge RYMER.

ORDER

On April 24, 1996, the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“the AEDPA”) was enacted into law. On April 26,1996, the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (the “PLRA”) was enacted into law. Appellant’s section 2254 petition was pending in the district court on these dates, and the notice of appeal was filed on May 13, 1996. The district court issued a certificate of ap-pealability under the AEDPA on May 21, 1996, and appellant’s in forma pauperis status granted on January 6, 1995, continues in this court, as it has not been revoked by the district court. Fed.R.App.P. 24(a). This court sua sponte appointed counsel to address the following questions raised by application of the AEDPA and the PLRA to this appeal:

Appellant was convicted of murder in 1985 and is currently serving a life sentence. Appellant filed this petition for writ of habeas corpus in the district court on January 8, 1995, more than one year prior to enactment of the AEDPA and the PLRA. On April 29, 1996, days after the enactment of both Acts, the district court denied the petition as to three of the four claims and granted the petition as to the fourth claim.…

Concurring Opinion

Rymer, J.

concurring:

I concur because I feel constrained to do so by Jeffries, as I understand what it will hold.

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.